Did we decide not to use "avoid"? If it is not the case, then I'm not sure I understand why the following amb is not dealt with from the parser itself. "sizeof" "(" TypeName ")" -> UnaryExpression {cons("sizeof1")} "sizeof" UnaryExpression -> UnaryExpression {cons("sizeof")}
"Akim" == Akim Demaille <akim@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
Did we decide not to use "avoid"? If it is not the case, then I'm not sure I understand why the following amb is not dealt with from the parser itself.
"sizeof" "(" TypeName ")" -> UnaryExpression {cons("sizeof1")} "sizeof" UnaryExpression -> UnaryExpression {cons("sizeof")}
The same applies here:
3293 UnaryExpression -> CastExpression {cons("UnaryExpression")} "(" TypeName ")" CastExpression -> CastExpression {cons("Cast")}
On 12/1/05, Akim Demaille <akim@lrde.epita.fr> wrote:
"Akim" == Akim Demaille <akim@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
Did we decide not to use "avoid"? If it is not the case, then I'm not sure I understand why the following amb is not dealt with from the parser itself.
"sizeof" "(" TypeName ")" -> UnaryExpression {cons("sizeof1")} "sizeof" UnaryExpression -> UnaryExpression {cons("sizeof")}
The same applies here:
3293 UnaryExpression -> CastExpression {cons("UnaryExpression")} "(" TypeName ")" CastExpression -> CastExpression {cons("Cast")}
void a(int i); void f(void) { int b; (a)(b); } ---- typedef int a; void f(void) { int b; (a)(b); } -- Valentin David valentin.david@gmail.com
On 12/1/05, Akim Demaille <akim@lrde.epita.fr> wrote:
Did we decide not to use "avoid"? If it is not the case, then I'm not sure I understand why the following amb is not dealt with from the parser itself.
"sizeof" "(" TypeName ")" -> UnaryExpression {cons("sizeof1")} "sizeof" UnaryExpression -> UnaryExpression {cons("sizeof")}
int f(void) { int i; return sizeof(i); } ---- typedef int i; int f(void) { return sizeof(i); } -- Valentin David valentin.david@gmail.com
participants (2)
-
Akim Demaille -
Valentin David